I'd argue that a big part of it is the small details that you know about each other.
ie they saw two nights before. Closeness often comes from knowing the small things, not just the big things. Distance makes knowing those small things harder. When you live together, either with your family or your friends, knowing the small things is easy. They get con
The promise of the social web is about making it easy to share the small stuff -
From the Google blog: they argue that the benefit of the social web and social technologies is that people are able to stay close to friends because they are aware of the small events going on daily in their lives.
... there is a cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable relationships, that this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained.
147.8 is the "mean group size" for humans
community size of 150 will not be a mean for a community unless it is highly incentivized to remain together
Dunbar's theory is that this 42% number would be true for humans if humans had not invented language, a "cheap" form of social grooming
Dunbar's Number acting as a limit rather than a mean.
WikiPedia
This all leads me to hypothesize that the optimal size for active group members for creative and technical groups -- as opposed to exclusively survival-oriented groups, such as villages -- hovers somewhere between 25-80, but is best around 45-50.
that the optimal size for active group members for creative and technical groups -- as opposed to exclusively survival-oriented groups, such as villages -- hovers somewhere between 25-80, but is
Dunbar] found that the MAXIMUM number of people that a person could keep up with socially at any given time, gossip maintenance, was 150
but that they only keep tabs on 150 people max at any given point